The Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

1:1 The Difficult Reading Principle

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:

1:1

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
746 [e] Archē Ἀρχὴ [The] beginning N-NFS
3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the Art-GNS
2098 [e] euangeliou εὐαγγελίου gospel N-GNS
2424 [e] Iēsou Ἰησοῦ of Jesus N-GMS
5547 [e] Christou Χριστοῦ Christ, N-GMS
5207 [e] Huiou Υἱοῦ Son N-GMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ. of God. N-GMS

Our two candidates here are:
  • 1) The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

    2) The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The five levels of The Difficult Reading Principle are:
  • 5 = Negative description of Jesus. Example would be 1:41, an angry Jesus.

    4 = Significant problem for Christian assertion. Example would be 16:8, no narrative of historical communication with a resurrected Jesus.

    3 = Contradiction with Christian/Jewish Bible. Example would be 1:2, entire quote attributed to Isaiah.

    2 = Clear preference for one candidate where the meanings are similar. Example would be 1:10, "upon" rather than "into".

    1 = Minor preference for one candidate due to improved accuracy/coordination. Example would be 1:4, "John the Baptizer" vs. "John baptizing".
This would be a number 4 above, a significant problem for Christian assertion. A major Christian assertion is not just that Jesus supposedly was sog (son of god) but when Jesus became sog. For GMark specifically, Jesus explicitly is identified as becoming sog at his baptism. With omission of 1:1 sog, the timing of Jesus becoming sog at his baptism is unchallenged in GMark. Bart Ehrman in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament supports this observation by identifying extant Christian evidence that the timing of Jesus becoming sog was an important, debated issue in the early Christian centuries.

The Difficult Reading Principle has two underlying questions, one Internal and one External:
  • Internal = which candidate was our author more likely to have written?

    External = which candidate were copyists more likely to choose?
The Internal is generally more subjective since we know so little about the original authors. In general Jesus as "son of god" is one of the most important assertions of GMark and thus favors inclusion. Specifically though, GMark likewise has a major and otherwise consistent theme that Jesus was unreMarkable until his baptism thus favoring omission. Add to this that the sog identifications in GMark are otherwise always via narrative and never editorial comment. Additionally, we will see with the Internal evidence for 1:1 as a whole, that it has a relatively very high rate of inconsistencies with GMark as a whole, suggesting that all of 1:1 is not original to GMark. And evidence that 1:1 is not original to GMark is evidence that any part of it is also not. The Internal evidence question then is something of a wash.

On the other hand, the External question is clearly answered. Orthodox Christian copyists would have much preferred inclusion of sog as each successive Gospel and editing of that Gospel tries to make the timing of Jesus' sog earlier.

Conclusion = The Force of The Difficult Reading Principle is strong in this one (son of god) and is a level 4.



Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

1:1 The Internal Evidence

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:

1:1

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
746 [e] Archē Ἀρχὴ [The] beginning N-NFS
3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the Art-GNS
2098 [e] euangeliou εὐαγγελίου gospel N-GNS
2424 [e] Iēsou Ἰησοῦ of Jesus N-GMS
5547 [e] Christou Χριστοῦ Christ, N-GMS
5207 [e] Huiou Υἱοῦ Son N-GMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ. of God. N-GMS

J. K. Elliott has the go to article for the Internal evidence for 1:1 available at:

Mark 1.1–3 – A Later Addition to the Gospel?

Specifically, for "son of god" Elliott does not make any Internal evidence observations. For the entirety of 1:1 though Elliott notices the following inconsistencies with the rest of GMark:
  • 1) The rest of GMark has clearly defined individual stories which are generally with contrived structure. It's unclear if 1:1 was intended to be grouped by itself or additional text. If additional text, what additional text?

    2) This is the only place in GMark that has "Jesus Christ".

    3) In the rest of GMark "gospel" refers to the divine (God's) plan, not Jesus'.

    4) In the rest of GMark "gospel" refers to Jesus' sayings and not actions.

    5) The first of the other 7 uses of "gospel", at 1:14, has the definite article which would be expected of the first usage of the term.

    6) The other uses of "Ἀρχὴ" (beginning) in GMark are temporal.

    7) 1:1 has no verb.
Before we even get to the External evidence, with a strong, level 4 Difficult Reading, and Internal evidence that the entire verse that "son of god" is with was not original, we can already conclude it possible that "son of god" is not original.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
Post Reply